Elite End Game for the USA: what the destruction of our energy sector can mean

The elites don’t care about power issues because they’re above any such issues. Energy shortages, food shortage? They have first dibs and enough money to afford it. And the more dependent the people the more power you have over them. It’s been the Democrat and Leftist mantra for quite a while.

It’s quite evil.

 

Compared to the wood and coal we were previously burning and would have burned without oil, its an improvement.

 

And the last 25 years of climate science has demonstrated we dont have a clue as to the damage from CO2

 

Looks like you left off in mid-statement. Don't bother to complete it.

You source is a book by an uber-conservative with ZERO background in any science, let alone climate science. He's very fluent in science denialism. He's an idealogue funded by the Koch Brothers.

 

Try these:

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/top-climate-change-scientists/

Unlike Epstein, these people are educated in science and have been studying climate change through various disciplines for decades.

 

That's like saying that being in the pan is an improvement over being in the fire.

 

Horseshit. See #54 and #55.

 

Unless you have something more than a personal attack no one should be interested in your views.

 

Yawn. I'm with Nir Shaviv, Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

 

Were not in the pan or the fire. Going through a climate cycle just like the earth did about 1000 years ago. And weve reaped the benefits of both the energy weve extracted from our fires and learned to minimize greatly the particulate and toxic pollutants from those fires.

 

How is that a personal attack? I'm dismissing your source as a shill who gets money from big oil. That's not an attack, it's providing facts, something with which your "expert" seems unfamiliar.

But you go ahead, report me to the mods if you really believe my informational post, of which you conveniently quoted only a small part, was a personal attack.

 

The "cosmic ray" guy?

Nice. And you accuse me of posting a personal attack?

 

The current warming is nothing like past gradual changes in global temperatures and climate patterns. It may have qualified as just another natural warming cycle were it not for human activity, mostly in burning Fossil fuels, had not greatly accelerated it. It's like leaving the windows up in a parked car -- the air inside becomes much hotter that the air outside -- and the same goes for our atmosphere as we keep adding greenhouse gasses to it. There's no escape for the heat.

 

Im fully aware of the "consensus" on climate science. Followed it for 25 years. Theyve demonstrated they dont have a clue. Their predictions, again and again have failed to come to fruition.

 

Links?

 

It's a dangerous tyrannical doomsday cult.

Global Warming? Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover At 56-Year High

"Extensive snow extent early in the season is an indicator of persistent cold as we head into winter proper."

 

Google abiotic oil

 

Your post was a personal attack on the author, as a way to avoid debating the facts of the matter.

 

Shaviv elevates any discussion in which he participates. I should also mention his close collaborator Henrik Svensmark.

 

Nir Shaviv Debunked
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2016/12/nir-shaviv-debunked.html

 

That post is a three time loser.
1. The author's claim about solar activity is factually incorrect.
2. The author's argument is befouled by a ludicrous personal attack of the sort that is unfortunately common in climate alarmist propaganda.
3. The author's attack is in any case rendered obsolete by the publication of a landmark paper in 2017.

Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, J., 2017, In: Nature Communications. 8, 1, 9 p., 2199.

 

Given the seriousness of the matter it is unfortunate, but understandable, when irresponsible climate change deniers are exposed as charlatans by climate science.

Is the Sun causing global warming?
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.

 

LOLOL! Good ole .gov/faq proclaims NO, then they directly contradict themselves. We are coming out of an ice age. We should expect for the earth to continue to warm until the glaciers and polar ice all melt because of the sun, like the end every other ice age.

 

Interesting. Thank you.

 

So, pointing out that the un-scientist you choose to heed is an oil company shill with no background in any of the dozens of disciplines involved in climate science was a personal attack? Don't you do the same when someone refers you to a charlatan?

If you want to debate climate science, I'm up for that. Start a thread. I'll be there, but only if you can be civil, and actually read the links I provide.